Har Singh Bora v. Hon. P.C.Verma, A.C.J

Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K.Uniyal, learned counsel for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of certiorari to termination order dated 30.06.1992 and 7.8.1990 passed by the opposite party. The petitioner was holding the post of peon the respondent organization. He was substantively holding the post and was working regularly. By order dated 7.8.1990, the petitioner was transferred from District Nainital to Champawat, who did not there. He made a representation and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he filed a civil suit. He also filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of wages in the Labour Court. During the pendency of civil suit and application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a notice was published on 14.4.1992 after sending registered notice, which reads as under: uksfVl Jh gjflag cksgjk] pijklh }kjk Jh gjh”k pUnz f=ikBh] ekYVu dkVst] eYyhrky uSuhrkyA Jh gjflag cksgjk] iq= Jh eksgu flag cksgjk] xzke&ftukSyh ¼rky½ iks0vks0 [ksjkyh cMk xjeikuh ftyk%uSuhrky- dk; kZy; vkns”k la[;k 3472@2%5 fnukad 7-8-90 }kjk vkidk LFkkukarj.k “kklfud n`f’Vdks.k ls eq[;ky; uSuhrky ls jksftu ,oa VjisUVkbZu bZdkbZ pEikor fd;k x;k FkkA iqu% vkidks vfUre volj nsrs gq, mDr nksuksa irs ij iathd`r ikorh uksfVl la[;k 11711@2&5 fnukad 17 ekpZ 1992 }kjk funsZ”k fn;s x;s Fks fd izR;sd n”kk esa vki fnukad 1-4-1992 rd pEikor bZdkbZ esa vius dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksa ijUrq mDr iathd`r i= iksLV vkWfQl ls bl fVIi.kh ds lkFk ewy esa bl dk; kZy; dks izkIr gqvk fd ÞizkIrdrkZ mfYyf[kr irksa ij miyC/k ugha gSAß ijUrq vkius vc rd dk; ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k gSA bl izdkj vki LosPNk ls vius dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr gSaA blls Li’V gS fd vki fuxe esa dk;Z djus ds bPNqd ugha gSaA vr,o vkidks lekpkj i= ds ek/;e ls ;g vafre uksfVl fn;k tkrk gS fd vki bl lwpuk ds izdk”ku ds 15 fnu ds Hkhrj viuk dk; ZHkkj jksftu ,.M VjisUVkbZu bZdkbZ pEikor esa xzg.k dj ysa] vU;Fkk ;g le>k tk; sxk fd vki fuxe esa dk;Z djus ds bPNqd ugha gS vkSj fcuk fdlh lwp0uk ds vius dk;Z esa vuqifLFkr jgus ds QyLo:Ik vkidh lsok, sa lekIr dj nh tk; saxhA vkj0ds0oekZ] izcU/kd funs”kd dqekma e.My fodkl fuxe fy0] uSuhrky- A perusal of this notice published in the news paper shows that no departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and inference was drawn that the petitioner was not interested to join the services of organization. Therefore, services petitioner were terminated. Since the petitioner was regular employee of the respondent organization, it was a case of absence from duty. Therefore, he could be terminated only after holoding a departmental inquiry by serving him charge-sheet unauthorized absence. Since services petitioner, who was a regular employee of the Corporation, have been terminated without holding departmental inquiry, therefore, impugned order can not be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing termination order dated 30.06.1992 and 7.8.1990 passed by respondent. The petitioner shall be reinistated. For absence, no wages shall be paid to him. However, it will be open for the corporation to proceed in accordance with law. Dt. 26.06.2003 A (P.C.Verma, A.C.J.)